Do you know how to tell if a movie is not for you? Before it is halfway through, you're ready to jab the straw from your little White Cherry ICEE into your eyes so you don't have to keep watching the thing. That's how I felt while watching 28 Weeks Later. Maybe I had such high hopes because I kind of liked the first one- 28 Days Later (3 of 5 butters?). That one had interesting characters. It showed the means in which the uninfected might survive. You felt for the people- I can still remember how sad it was when a dad was infected because a single drop of blood got into his eye. It was compelling. This one felt more like those cheap haunted houses that people throw together for Halloween with plastic bag walls and scary stobe lights, but instead of being there- you're watching it from your seat in a movie theatre. Rahhhh!!!!! Big deal. The thing is, it has a very promising beginning. But it was as if they thought 'okay, enough of the story, let's bring on the gore!'. And that's exactly what they did. For fans of serious gore- you would probably like this a lot more than I did. Another problem was the believability of the character's actions. Too many times I thought- 'why the hell would anyone do anything so stupid!'. You can make a drinking game of it since it happens so often in this film.
Okay, so I'll give this movie 1 blood splattered butter. And it earned that one for the first 15 minutes, everything else was just kind of bad. And gross.